Adjusting to PPR Formats: A Few Key Considerations

Most cheat sheets are geared toward standard leagues, as are most strategy articles. This is so even though a substantial percentage - if not a majority - of leagues are employing some kind of point per reception (PPR) scoring system. While many leagues award half a point per reception, some even three-quarters, and some different amounts depending on a player's position, let's for the sake of simplicity address the most common format: one point per reception, i.e, straight PPR, for all players.

Adopting this parameter for your scoring has some obvious and not so obvious implications for player valuation and ultimately draft stategy. Let's run down some of the key ones:

Quarterbacks lose some of their value

Unlike, running backs, receivers and tight ends, quarterbacks obviously don't catch passes, and therefore signal callers will account for less of the total scoring output each week in a PPR league than in a standard one. Quarterbacks are still the same relative to one another, but PPR means that there will be a bigger gap between the elite and the replacement value at the other key positions, and therefore the top RBs, WRs and TEs will be more valuable relative to QBs than in a standard league.

Elite pass-catching RBs vs. Elite WR in PPR

For the most part, a player's value comes from how he stacks up to players at his own position. So while it would seem WRs, who catch the most passes, have the most to gain from a shift to PPR, it's worth comparing them to the elite pass-catching RBs who are the biggest receiving outliers at their position. To illustrate, let's look at the top-five pass catching WRs from last year:

At first glance it seems to cut slightly in favor of WR, but take a look at the replacement-level WR - most are players you'd actually use in your lineup as No. 3 wideouts. Certainly, Robinson, Smith, Baldwin, Moore, Holmes, Young and Simpson found their way into a lot of lineups. But the RBs - while having Lynch and Murray in the mix - are chock full of fullbacks and backup runners you'd almost never use. For RBs, many pass-catchers are designated for that role and don't have value otherwise. That's almost never the case with WR. So if we talk about "startable" RB, the replacement value for receptions is far lower. Let's keep Best, Murray, Gerhart and Lynch, and find the next eight RBs you'd have actually used. They were Kevin Smith (22), Peyton Hillis (22), Ryan Grant (19), Darren McFadden (19), Rashard Mendenhall (18), Adrian Peterson (18), Michael Turner (17) and Frank Gore (17). When you average those players in, it's much closer to the difference of 40 we found with WR. And really, that's who you're comparing Ray Rice to - Michael Turner, not Ogbonnaya.

Of course, this is just one season of data, but at least in 2011, elite pass-catching RBs benefitted about as much as elite pass catching receivers from a PPR format.